From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Mikoleski v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1998
249 A.D.2d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 14, 1998


Substantial evidence supports respondent's findings, which in large part turned on witness credibility ( see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444), and the penalties of dismissal and loss of pension do not shock our sense of fairness ( see, Trotta v. Ward, 77 N.Y.2d 827). Petitioner's claim that the disciplinary proceeding was not timely commenced within the 18-month period prescribed by Civil Service Law § 75 (4) is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief, and in any event without merit. The relevant measuring date is service of the first set of charges and specifications ( see, Matter of Nagle v. Bratton, 245 A.D.2d 122).

Concur — Lerner, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Mikoleski v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1998
249 A.D.2d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Mikoleski v. Bratton

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LAWRENCE A. MIKOLESKI, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM J. BRATTON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 14, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 75

Citing Cases

Collazo v. Suffolk Cnty.

ng to vacate an arbitration award recommending certain disciplinary action against her with respect to her…

Collazo v. Suffolk Cnty.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to vacate an arbitration award recommending certain disciplinary…